Iíve Been Called the Worst Thing You Can Call Someone, I Support the Right to Say It Anyway
The Resurgent
By Kira Davis | June 20, 2017, 04:00am

<Excerpt>:

I was called a [n-word] nearly every weekday of my life from my first day of school until my last.

This might seem hard to believe in this day and age, but it is true. I grew up on a tiny rural island in eastern Canada. Prince Edward Island has always been known for its beautiful beaches, Anne of Green Gables and potatoes.

But before the internet made the world much smaller, before mass immigration to North America from many regions across the world, before anyone had even heard of the term Ďhate speechí Ė before all these things PEI was isolated and white. In the Ď70s and Ď80s most Islanders had never seen a black person in real life, and their entertainment certainly contained very few black faces. I was an anomaly. I was odd and too many people felt too free to let me know on a regular basis.

...

Iím telling you this story because today the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment contains no exceptions for hate speech.

As someone who has regularly been called one of the most horrible things one person can call another human being, I whole-heartedly support this decision and I couldnít agree more.

I'm inclined to agree re: the "crux," but I'm assuming you're familiar with the concept of "natural law," and the view - held by many - that rights are God-given and the purpose of the Constitution is to protect them from violation by man?

Even if you don't subscribe to that view, do you disagree with the idea that even offensive speech warrants First Amendment protections?

Yes, even offensive speech is covered by the first amendment. But, the amendment says your speech can't be restricted by law. It doesn't mean you're protected from consequences for your words.

Yet again, you've not used a quote box, and left me questioning who you are speaking to, or just the OP. Somehow I suspect that's by design.

As you've shown a keen interest in berating me since my arrival, it would not be out of line to ask (again) is this pointed at me?

I'm beginning to think that OldGuy might be a better moniker for you, sir; at least from my perspective.
Birthday parties and sleepovers looked like the UN in my house - this is not the 40s/50s/60s.

I related a wholly true story about a boy who used a word that was in common use amongst his friends. His use of the word denoted camaraderie, anything but animus or hatred. WS? not a chance in hell.

If I have misread your post, my apologies.
If not, I would implore you to desist from viewing the world as nothing more than black or white.
That crap's bad for the systolic, dontchya know.

I had not even read your post, I was replying to the OP, sensitive much? And some fringe rightie already has the OlGuy moniker, please never confuse us. The board has been getting an infusion of white nationalists and fringe radicals since the Trump election, does not mean I think you are one, at least you don't have a Norse God name as your handle...but I am guilty of looking at new posters with a cynical eye lately...the old looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all.

I'm inclined to agree re: the "crux," but I'm assuming you're familiar with the concept of "natural law," and the view - held by many - that rights are God-given and the purpose of the Constitution is to protect them from violation by man?

Even if you don't subscribe to that view, do you disagree with the idea that even offensive speech warrants First Amendment protections?

Simply put. No right is absolute and no right is beyond regulation. There are different types of offensive language. Not all are created equal.

Like every other right their is an absolute right of belief and not an absolute right for practice.

My right to free speech can only go as far as it does not violate your rights....whether my speech is offensive or not.

Americans have frequently called me an Englishman, and there is apparently no law against this. Their use of the word 'limey' is puzzling: it was originally a label for British seamen, who, were given lime to counteract scurvy, a group which would undoubtedly have included a great number of Irish sailors, but Irish-Americans seem to use it to mean 'English', or even 'British', and I wish they'd decide what it does mean.

Iíve Been Called the Worst Thing You Can Call Someone, I Support the Right to Say It Anyway
The Resurgent
By Kira Davis | June 20, 2017, 04:00am

<Excerpt>:

I was called a [n-word] nearly every weekday of my life from my first day of school until my last.

This might seem hard to believe in this day and age, but it is true. I grew up on a tiny rural island in eastern Canada. Prince Edward Island has always been known for its beautiful beaches, Anne of Green Gables and potatoes.

But before the internet made the world much smaller, before mass immigration to North America from many regions across the world, before anyone had even heard of the term Ďhate speechí Ė before all these things PEI was isolated and white. In the Ď70s and Ď80s most Islanders had never seen a black person in real life, and their entertainment certainly contained very few black faces. I was an anomaly. I was odd and too many people felt too free to let me know on a regular basis.

...

Iím telling you this story because today the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment contains no exceptions for hate speech.

As someone who has regularly been called one of the most horrible things one person can call another human being, I whole-heartedly support this decision and I couldnít agree more.

I am unaware of any instances of the state punishing a person for having said the word n****r. Uttering this word, therefore, is not a First Amendment issue.

That said, are you opposed to society taking a dim view toward individuals who publicly employ such epithets to denigrate entire classes of people?

Is it, in your opinion, a First Amendment issue when advertising sponsors boycott a public broadcast celebrity for engaging in such derogatory speech in the course of broadcasting their program? Should the courts step in to prevent the owners of a public broadcasting company from firing a celebrity for having engaged in such behavior?

I am of the opinion that the First Amendment guarantees that the government shall not interfere with an individual's right to make statements that are considered offensive by the majority of their fellow citizens, but it does not guarantee that a person making such offensive statements will be protected from the consequences that they may face from non-governmental entities in response to their actions.